WI: A Female Paul

What would be the implications if a learned woman became an evangelist and her writings were integrated into the Bible? Would that effect the marketability of Christianity, and if it does retain the same amount of influence, how would this effect church hierarchy and the church's view on women? I don't want this female "Paul" to have a particularly feminist agenda, but more along the lines of Paul, either as a supplement or as a replacement, that won't really change the fundamental message of Christianity besides the fact that it is a woman preaching it.

How would Rome view Christianity in this context? I know women and slaves already were drawn to the religion because it had egalitarian concepts and offered empowerment, but if a woman was a "Church Father" then would Rome be even harsher in persecuting it? Would an emperor even think of converting, and what events would have to transpire for this Church Mother's works to be included in Biblical canon? Would bishops be of both sexes, and would monasticism take root in the same way it did OTL? What would be the difference if this Church Mother replaced Paul in significance versus if her writings were a supplement to his writings?
 
Well here's the thing, we know that early Christianity was a big hit amongst the outcasts of the world such as women and slaves, so having a woman be a contributor to the Gospels probably doesn't hurt it's marketability, in fact we know from Paul's writing that women did play a big part in the early Christian movement.

However, due to the patriarchal nature of the time and the way power was solidified it's doubtful that it would change anything major about how the church is eventually formed.
 
Well here's the thing, we know that early Christianity was a big hit amongst the outcasts of the world such as women and slaves, so having a woman be a contributor to the Gospels probably doesn't hurt it's marketability, in fact we know from Paul's writing that women did play a big part in the early Christian movement.

However, due to the patriarchal nature of the time and the way power was solidified it's doubtful that it would change anything major about how the church is eventually formed.
I'd say that's pretty much accurate.
 
Mary Magdalene is often seen as a female apostle, but due to disargeements between her and Peter (which Peter won) her views and to a certain extend existence, at least as more than figments which paint her in a dim view, was eradicated ... Support for this can be seen in some of the gnostic texts and other noncanonical religious texts from the early periods of the church.

My point is ... we probably wouldn't need a female paul, but a less misogynistic Peter
 
Last edited:
Are gnostic texts reliable though? For example, was the Gospel of Mary actually written by Mary Magdalene herself, or even by a woman? With Paul's letters, there is little doubt that he himself wrote them. Would a woman's correspondence with fellow faithful (rather than a gnostic text) be suppressed to the same extent as the Gospel of Mary?
 
Are gnostic texts reliable though? For example, was the Gospel of Mary actually written by Mary Magdalene herself, or even by a woman? With Paul's letters, there is little doubt that he himself wrote them. Would a woman's correspondence with fellow faithful (rather than a gnostic text) be suppressed to the same extent as the Gospel of Mary?

I would dispute that Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to him. Certainly the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are often regarded as not being written by him, being very different in their viewpoint and vocabulary from the rest of the letters. From Wikipedia:

The vocabulary and phraseology used in the Pastorals is often at variance with that of the other epistles. Over 1/3 of the vocabulary is not used anywhere else in the Pauline epistles, and over 1/5 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament, while 2/3 of the non-Pauline vocabulary are used by 2nd-century Christian writers.

and

Other reasons for a 2nd-century date have been argued. The Pastoral Epistles lay out church organisation concerning the character and requirements for bishops, elders, deacons, and widows. Some scholars have claimed that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime. In terms of theology, some scholars claim that the Pastorals reflect more the characteristics of 2nd century (Proto-orthodox) church thought, than those of the 1st century. In particular, whilst in the 1st century the idea of Christ's return being immediate was current, in the 2nd century it was seen as more distant, matching the choice of the pastorals to lay down instructions for a long time after the passing away of the apostles.

I should point out that almost all the misogynistic passages in Paul are from the Pastorals, hence quite possibly do not represent Paul's actual views.
 
Even with some people definitely trying to lobby in advance, couldn't the Council of Nicaea have gone differently due to random elements?
 
Some of Paul's letters describe a few women in positions of prominence within the church in his day. So the concept of a female holding authority in one of the early churches during Paul's lifetime is not that strange a concept. However if you read between the lines, the tension between Paul and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem is obvious and that tension could well be elevated if "Paul" is female.

I should also mention that I once read an argument by a Biblical scholar that the author of "Luke/Acts of the Apostles" was female, for whatever that's worth.
 
Some of Paul's letters describe a few women in positions of prominence within the church in his day. So the concept of a female holding authority in one of the early churches during Paul's lifetime is not that strange a concept. However if you read between the lines, the tension between Paul and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem is obvious and that tension could well be elevated if "Paul" is female.

I should also mention that I once read an argument by a Biblical scholar that the author of "Luke/Acts of the Apostles" was female, for whatever that's worth.

It's not even a "read behind the lines" thing--he openly speaks of disputes with Peter.
 
A female Paul is absolutely impossible. His work was essentially that of a missionary apostle, and lone women just didnt and couldnt wander the Hellenic world.

Could, however, awoman fill the role (in the New Testament) of John, Peter, James, or the other John? Someone like Mary, mother of Jesus, or Mary Magdalene or Mary wife of Cleopas, or someone like that be possible? Maybe.

However, otl, one of the criteria for getting a book into the Bible was that it was supposed to have been written by an Apostle - and there werent any female apostles.

So, you either have to change the selection criteria (which since a significant number of books werent actually written by the nominal author, isnt going to change much), or theres going to have to be a female apostle chosen.

There are a couple of ways to get this to happen, all of which may involve divine intervention. :)) un fortunately both the Jewish and Greek culture of the time were incredibly misogynistic.)
1) have Mary Magdalene accepted by the others more. This might well require more direct action by Jesus himself.
2) have the filling of Judas's place result in the selection of a woman. Probably one of the above mentioned. The selection was done by drawing lots, so you'd likely have to have someone throw in the woman's name as a joke. Since no one is likely to own up to being the prankster, it might, MIGHT be taken as divine intervention and accepted. More likely, they redraw the lots and it might take actual divine intervention for the woman to win.
3) have a compelling conversion/call happen. Paul insisted he was appointed Apostle directly by God, and his conversion showed sufficient evidence of being miraculous (well, because it was, imo, but even agnostics have to agree it was ... unusual) that his claim was accepted. The mind boggles at the level of miracle required to convince the 12 that a WOMAN was appointed apostle by God, but Im sure he could come up with something.
4) after Jesus's death, 'James, brother of Our Lord' ends up on the council in Jerusalem iOTL. ITTL, X, sister of Our Lord, or Mary, mother of our Lord, might, MIGHT be able to do the same.
 
It's not even a "read behind the lines" thing--he openly speaks of disputes with Peter.

Some early documents go even further than that. In The Recognitions of Clement, we find this passage:

1:70 And when matters were at that point that they would all come and be baptized, Paul and his men entered the temple: and Paul cried out: 'Oh men of Israel, why are you so easily influenced by these miserable men?' He began to excite the people and raise a tumult... and drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been done by James. Paul rebuked the priests for having listened to James, and, like a madman, began to excite the priests and people to murder James and the brethren, saying 'Do not hesitate; grab them and pull them to pieces.' Paul then, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, joined in the beating. Much blood was shed. Although James and the brethren were more numerous and more powerful they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force, than to kill others. Paul attacked James and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead left him.

Which indicates that Paul actually tried to kill James the Just, leader of the Jerusalem Christians (and quite possibly the brother of Jesus). I am far from convinced that this happened as described, but it certainly seems that there was a lot of hostility between Paul and the original Jerusalem Christians.
 
A female Paul is absolutely impossible. His work was essentially that of a missionary apostle, and lone women just didnt and couldnt wander the Hellenic world.

Could, however, awoman fill the role (in the New Testament) of John, Peter, James, or the other John? Someone like Mary, mother of Jesus, or Mary Magdalene or Mary wife of Cleopas, or someone like that be possible? Maybe.

However, otl, one of the criteria for getting a book into the Bible was that it was supposed to have been written by an Apostle - and there werent any female apostles.

While you are of course, absolutely right that the culture of Paul's Judeo-Greco-Roman world, and the ancient world in general, was highly misogynistic-there's at least a small case to be made that there was at least one woman Paul may have referred to as an "Apostle" allbeit, not in the missionary sense. In one of his letters he mentions a "Junia" who is said to be "prominent among the Apostles." I'm not saying that you're wrong-as there are other ways to interpret that reference especially since she's paired with "Andronicus" and since I can't read Greek I can't be sure of the grammatical implications of "among the Apostles" in the original language. That is whether Paul meant that Andronicus and Junia were well known and respected by Apostles or whether they themselves were Apostles. By no means am I saying that I think that the issue is clear cut and that Junia was an Apostle. I am merely suggesting that there's an argument to be made that Paul did state that she was.


It's true to say that there weren't any women among "The Twelve" but as Paul himself demonstrated, the phrase Apostle wasn't limited to them. Women do appear to have played a prominent role in the early church from what I've read, though prominent woman typically played the role of patron/benefactor going by Paul's letters and hints in the Gospels.

I am by no means an expert and I realize I could easily be wrong about all of this as I am relying on what I have read in the past rather than research of my own.
 

Redhand

Banned
While you are of course, absolutely right that the culture of Paul's Judeo-Greco-Roman world, and the ancient world in general, was highly misogynistic-there's at least a small case to be made that there was at least one woman Paul may have referred to as an "Apostle" allbeit, not in the missionary sense. In one of his letters he mentions a "Junia" who is said to be "prominent among the Apostles." I'm not saying that you're wrong-as there are other ways to interpret that reference especially since she's paired with "Andronicus" and since I can't read Greek I can't be sure of the grammatical implications of "among the Apostles" in the original language. That is whether Paul meant that Andronicus and Junia were well known and respected by Apostles or whether they themselves were Apostles. By no means am I saying that I think that the issue is clear cut and that Junia was an Apostle. I am merely suggesting that there's an argument to be made that Paul did state that she was.


It's true to say that there weren't any women among "The Twelve" but as Paul himself demonstrated, the phrase Apostle wasn't limited to them. Women do appear to have played a prominent role in the early church from what I've read, though prominent woman typically played the role of patron/benefactor going by Paul's letters and hints in the Gospels.

I am by no means an expert and I realize I could easily be wrong about all of this as I am relying on what I have read in the past rather than research of my own.

The idea of a highborn Roman woman quickly warming to Christianity is not at all a foreign concept (see wife of Pilate) and the fact that someone named Junia( she may have come from the prominent Roman family distantly) is listed as being known to the apostles means she was likely someone the apostles converted early and figured she would be useful in helping to reach Roman society as a whole. Women likely had a greater chance of being prominent among the apostles if they struck up a genuine friendship through conversion with one of them or if they were notably educated and had the ability to contribute philosophical concepts to what was becoming Christianity.
 
Here's another alternative.

Suppose an early Christian high-born convert, someone with high status and prestige, who is also literate, starts up a correspondence with her Christian sisters elsewhere. And at the same time she becomes a close associate of some of the apostles and basically helps with their correspondence. Then, over time, maybe she almost becomes a kind of early Christian Dear Abby. Women write to her to ask the apostles for advice, she does, and then she writes back. Maybe she includes some of her own advice. If some of her letters of advice also contain sayings or stories of jesus or of the acts of the apostles, it makes them particularly likely to be preserved and possibly canonized. Likewise if one of the apostles writes a letter that explicitly refers to one of hers, something like, "and I commend to you the letter of our dear sister Julia to the women among the Saints in Athens."

Not likely, but not impossible.
 
Here's another alternative.

Suppose an early Christian high-born convert, someone with high status and prestige, who is also literate, starts up a correspondence with her Christian sisters elsewhere. And at the same time she becomes a close associate of some of the apostles and basically helps with their correspondence. Then, over time, maybe she almost becomes a kind of early Christian Dear Abby. Women write to her to ask the apostles for advice, she does, and then she writes back. Maybe she includes some of her own advice. If some of her letters of advice also contain sayings or stories of jesus or of the acts of the apostles, it makes them particularly likely to be preserved and possibly canonized. Likewise if one of the apostles writes a letter that explicitly refers to one of hers, something like, "and I commend to you the letter of our dear sister Julia to the women among the Saints in Athens."

Not likely, but not impossible.

In agnostic terms, it may be just a roll of the dice that the "Junia letters" were not preserved to enter the Church canon. Of course, for a believer no dice just rolls by "chance".
 
This is a hard question. Christians believe that God controls history and having a female church leader would require a much different Bible.

But, if the question whether Christianity be more marketable, that's very tough. The Bible has gender distinctions that reflect Trinitarianism.

So, in effect, it would be a totally different religion, that probably would not gain traction in the Roman Empire.
 
Top